[Ansteorra] The waterbearing brouhaha

[Chris Zakes]

At 06:05 PM 6/17/2008, you wrote:
> > <shrug> The waiver already says that we're doing this voluntarily and
> > if we get hurt it's not the SCA's fault. What more do you want?
>
>
> > >Putting the membership at risk is not a proper response
>
> > How is this putting the membership at risk? There's nothing that says
> > people can't bring their own water (which they *should* be doing
> > anyway) and nothing that says Household X or The Generic
> > Waterbearer's Guild can't take over for the Waterbearer's Office and
> > hand out water. All it does is withdraw any *official* SCA sponsorship.
>
> >         -Tivar Moondragon
>
>Less availability of water = more risk of heat related casualty -
>especially, as you noted elsewhere, at melees.

That presumes that the current waterbearers will simply take their 
bottles and go home if the Board's proposal passes. Judging by the 
response here, that's not going to happen.

Also, as I said above, people *should* be bringing their own water, 
not expecting on someone else to do it for them; ideally the 
waterbearers should just be a more convenient way of getting water, 
not the sole source. Are we becoming such a nanny-state that we have 
to depend on someone else for something as simple as a drink of water?


>There's really only one more thing that sits wrong with me about this:
>  The SCA would be taking this action to remove liability from itself
>for the activity of waterbearing - but not removing the activity.
>It's been said that operation could continue just as before, simply
>having a guild or something do it without official sanction.  Since
>the activity is still there the liability won't have been removed - it
>will have been transferred to those gracious private volunteers.  "I
>want to commend our great waterbearing guild today.  For your
>outstanding efforts we give you our thanks and admiration... oh, and a
>great heaping helping of liability."
>
>Not that I think there's enough liability here that we need to change
>anything.  Has anyone even threatened action related to waterbearing
>duties or are we fixing something that isn't broken?

No, but we thought our Children's Activities were fine, too, until a 
sexual predator used them as a way to lure kids to his house and 
abuse them. Now we're being sued for that incident as well as having 
to deal with backgrounds checks for the folks working with the kids. 
I don't like it, but I can understand why the Board is a little gun-shy.


>So, (and of course IANAL) if the activity is continuing just as before
>and not being prohibited, there's very little difference between that
>and official sanction.  Couldn't the SCA be sued just as easily for
>allowing it to go on at sanctioned events?  A lawyer that would sue as
>things stand now would probably also sue under the new rules.

Yes, but... Are you familiar with the concept of "deep pockets"? It's 
something bad lawyers look for when they want to sue somebody. If, 
for example, I get shot during a robbery, the gun manufacturer would 
have *far* more money than the gunman, thus a bad lawyer might try to 
sue the gun manufacturer, trying to make the case that it's somehow 
*their* fault.

The SCA has far more money than Joe Waterbearer, so suing the SCA 
makes more sense to a bad lawyer.

         -Tivar Moondragon